| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The bulk, scale and mass of the proposed development in close proximity to the boundaries would appear as an unneighbourly cramped overdevelopment of the site, incongruous with the local pattern of development and out of character with the surrounding area, therefore harmful to local character and detrimental to neighbouring residential amenity, contrary to London Plan Policy D1 and Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposed development would result in living conditions that do not create a suitably high quality living environment for future occupiers. The constraints of the site in conjunction with the design approach adopted would be to the detriment of the amenity of future occupiers. The constrained plot and arrangement of living accommodation resulting in
poor outlook from the living/dining area and overlooking and noise from Cedar Road, would be substandard and give rise to an overwhelming sense of enclosure, in direct contrast to the aims of London Plan Policy D6 and Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | The proposed development would by reason of its excessive bulk, mass and scale on a constrained site within close proximity of the boundaries result in an visually intrusive form of development that would compromise the amenity of neighbouring properties by way of harm to outlook, sense of enclosure, loss of privacy and overbearing impact contrary to the objectives of DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the Residential Design SPD. |
| 4. | The proposed development would, by reason of the inadequate on site car parking provision, result in unacceptable overspill onto the adjoining roads to the detriment of highway safety. The increased competition for spaces would be of detriment to the amenity of surrounding residential occupiers and the proposals are therefore contrary to Policy DC33 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 5. | Statement Required by Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: Consideration was given to seeking amendments, but given conflict with adopted planning policy, it was necessary to issue a decision as close to the statutory timeframe as possible as opposed to seeking amendments which would have significantly delayed the application. |
| 6. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for the Mayor of London and Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Based upon the information supplied with the application, the Mayoral CIL payable would be £2,125 and £10,625 for Havering CIL, subject to indexation. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
